In 2009, anti-bankster protesters in Philadelphia were peacefully asserting
their (non-existent) First Amendment rights. Yeah, I know. What were they
thinking? Here in the USA, you simply do
not disparage those who own what (barely) passes for a government.|
These peasants were punished (see YouTube
videos, below) for the "crime" of peacefully protesting the lack of law
enforcement and the free reign of an entire class of criminals in the USA.
state-run media have been trying to suppress the peasant protests that have been
going on since this event, actual news outlets have been carrying these stories.
The response of the state-run media has been to disparage the protestors, as
if somehow a person who objects to felonious behavior is in the wrong. Amazingly,
there are actually people who expose their brains to this sort of "news." Yes,
it's true. Some people just live dangerously. They watch television "news" and
read "news" papers.
That's your first tip: Protect your brain from these contamination sources. I
trust you are already doing that. So, on to the next item.
Lately, I've been corresponding with a fellow who does not understand the
definition of "illegal." For example, most of what the federal government does
is illegal. Nearly every law that CONgress has passed in the last 100 years is
illegal. Why is this?
To answer why they do it, just follow the money. They are mere employees of
psychopaths and criminals. That is so obvious, the real question is "Why aren't
members of CONgress doing like NASCAR drivers and wearing the logos of their
corporate sponsors?" Then at least we could choose between, say, Exxon and
To answer why these "laws" are illegal, we look to the (former) foundation of
federal law in the USA.
That is the US Constitution. Anything that conflicts with the Constitution is,
by definition, illegal.
So my correspondent comes back at me with irrelevancies. For example, he says
he personally never agreed to follow the Constitution so he is under no
obligation to follow it. This statement is an example of multiple logical
fallacies. Here are two, for example:
- Irrelevance. The Constitution does not apply to individuals. It
enumerates and limits the powers of the federal govt. So whether he agrees
with it or not has nothing to do with what's in it.
- Non sequitor. The conclusion does not follow from the postulation.
I bring up these two logical fallacies in particular because they seem to be
very much in vogue, right now. Whatever the reason for using these fallacies
(e.g., deliberate manipulation or just poor reasoning skills), they don't belong
in any serious discussion. The problem, though, is almost any "discussion" falls
prey to this kind of foolishness.
The nonsequitor has now been raised to the status of an art form. It's so
pervasive, I think there must be nonsequitor schools rising up all over the
country. I don't give these any validity, I just say "Does not follow" in
response. This means I have very short "conversations" with people who are
trying to proselytize using this popular method of non-argument. I just wonder
why they bother? It makes them look like they don't believe in their own
Then there's the irrelevancy fad. It reminds me of the bell bottoms craze of
the 1970s, and I hope it also goes away.
Do not permit irrelevancies into your thinking. If you do, then your ability
to think will be degraded. Irrelevancies are the dog turds of discussion. It's
impossible to pick one up by the clean end. You will get some stink on you.
But if so many people trot out irrelevancies, how can you avoid getting the
stink? As with dog turds, don't pick them up. Leave them lying where they are,
and point out to the other person there's a turd you both need to step around.
If the other person insists on stepping in it and then wiping his foot on
your trousers, you have only one option. As soon as he steps in it, walk away.
Now, it may seem harsh to end a conversation or a personal association with
someone on this basis. But keep in mind, this isn't just a person who's
disagreeing with you. This is a person who deliberately gets crap on himself and
then wants to share the stink with you. When you stop this process, you aren't
stopping a conversation. There wasn't a conversation in the first place.
Your brain is the only one you'll ever have. Protect it.